Kelly the Dog Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 Some around here would have you believe that element of TE's game is a big negative. That he's too willing to give up on the long play and goes through his progressions too fast. It's all about 'positive' plays. High percentage plays. Versus the VERY low percentage play of the DEEP SIDELINE PASS. Chicks dig the long ball, I guess. The name of the game is to keep the chains moving. That said, I look for TE to take far more chances down field as he's grown more comfortable with Evans, etc. Bank on it. In the meantime, like you, I'll be happy with someone that shows a TOTAL command of the offense. GO BILLS!!! Actually, the best quarterbacks and the most efficient quarterbacks in the league make decisions that are approximately halfway between Trent and JP. Trent does it too fast, JP doesn't do it fast enough, trying to make the big play too many times. Both of them could be better and it's not necessarily easier to learn one way or the other (meaning go up or down). Plus some QBs are simply a little more conservative than others. The best, however, are not conservative (Manning, Brady, Favre, Brees, Romo, etc.). Trent will need to go for broke and the bigger play more often. And I believe he will this year. JP needs to take what he can get a little more often. If he plays, I would expect him to because we should have more playmakers and better playcalling on offense.
JoeF Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 Actually, the best quarterbacks and the most efficient quarterbacks in the league make decisions that are approximately halfway between Trent and JP. Trent does it too fast, JP doesn't do it fast enough, trying to make the big play too many times. Both of them could be better and it's not necessarily easier to learn one way or the other (meaning go up or down). Plus some QBs are simply a little more conservative than others. The best, however, are not conservative (Manning, Brady, Favre, Brees, Romo, etc.). Trent will need to go for broke and the bigger play more often. And I believe he will this year. JP needs to take what he can get a little more often. If he plays, I would expect him to because we should have more playmakers and better playcalling on offense. To take this one step further Kelly...I would add that I think it is easier to go the direction Trent needs to go than the direction JP needs to go to improve. Trent had 4 years of pounding at Stanford that led to this rapid decision style. If the first option wasn't there immediately he had to the checkdown or got pummelled. I think its easier to work through an extra read before the check down than it is to speed up--Trent will probably be able to do this pretty easily. JP, however, has historically relied on his legs to get him out of trouble and buy him time..it worked for the most part in college but it works less in the pros. Both are smart, both work reasonably hard (despite Ross Tucker's comments about JP) both will learn, both will evolve--both have not had adequate time to adjust...JP's 4 seaons are really like one and a half or two of playing time and may equate to less adjustment time because he has almost always faced losing his job if he faltered a bit; Trent's had a half a season. I think we have a great situation for this year...Trent is a clear #1 but if he goes down--JP has a lot to prove and badly wants the opportunity to do so. I'd rather be thankful for this than do a compare and contrast...Its not going to change the fact that Trent is #1 on depth chart...
K-9 Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 Actually, the best quarterbacks and the most efficient quarterbacks in the league make decisions that are approximately halfway between Trent and JP. Trent does it too fast, JP doesn't do it fast enough, trying to make the big play too many times. Both of them could be better and it's not necessarily easier to learn one way or the other (meaning go up or down). Plus some QBs are simply a little more conservative than others. The best, however, are not conservative (Manning, Brady, Favre, Brees, Romo, etc.). Trent will need to go for broke and the bigger play more often. And I believe he will this year. JP needs to take what he can get a little more often. If he plays, I would expect him to because we should have more playmakers and better playcalling on offense. Fair point. But please go back and review rookie games of all the prolific QBs you mention and see how often they got rid of the ball too quickly. It's a natural and expected aspect of young QB play. If Edwards is still too quick on the trigger after 31 starts, I'll worry. Much of it has to do with his supporting cast performing their roles properly; all it takes is for one player to miss a read and BOOM, that play is NOT there. And all this is happening in an instant. In the meantime, take what the defense gives until you are at the point where you can exploit ANY D alignment and take what you want. That will take time and maturity. In the meantime keep the chains moving and keep the negative plays to a minimum. Negative plays are usually the result of either a positional breakdown or slow decision making by the QB. GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 To take this one step further Kelly...I would add that I think it is easier to go the direction Trent needs to go than the direction JP needs to go to improve. Trent had 4 years of pounding at Stanford that led to this rapid decision style. If the first option wasn't there immediately he had to the checkdown or got pummelled. I think its easier to work through an extra read before the check down than it is to speed up--Trent will probably be able to do this pretty easily. JP, however, has historically relied on his legs to get him out of trouble and buy him time..it worked for the most part in college but it works less in the pros. Both are smart, both work reasonably hard (despite Ross Tucker's comments about JP) both will learn, both will evolve--both have not had adequate time to adjust...JP's 4 seaons are really like one and a half or two of playing time and may equate to less adjustment time because he has almost always faced losing his job if he faltered a bit; Trent's had a half a season. I think we have a great situation for this year...Trent is a clear #1 but if he goes down--JP has a lot to prove and badly wants the opportunity to do so. I'd rather be thankful for this than do a compare and contrast...Its not going to change the fact that Trent is #1 on depth chart... While that is both logical and possible, I don't think I believe that. To me, just my opinion, is that Losman's "problem" if you can call it that, was multi-faceted. And while his decisions on the field didn't turn out to be right, or produce in terms of yards and points and wins, I think his reasoning was correct and remains correct. And it failed because he didn't make enough plays himself, and his team and coaching staff just weren't good enough. What happened was, he knew he had to put some points on the board, he knew his defense wasn't good enough to stop anyone, and he had this great toy (his cannon arm) that he wasn't really allowed to play with as much as he wanted to. So when he was put in a position to, he tried to use it too much. And he failed. But we weren't REALLY going to win during any point in his career so far if he took the more conservative approach anyway. Our defense still was unreliable, our coaching was still pretty horrible and too conservative, and we didn't have enough real playmakers to make much difference. Now, we really should be a lot better. Most of the plays that he held the ball too long on or started reckless scrambling like a maniac were 3rd and 8 or more. Not all but a huge portion. I don't expect us to be in nearly as many of those. I expect the defense to be able to stop teams. I expect Turk to use the weapons a lot better than his predecessor. I expect the line to be better, Marshawn to have more room, and Hardy to open up the offense a little. And hence those 3rd and 8's or 3rd and 11's or 2nd and 14's will be 3rd and 5's or 6's. And he won't feel the need to do it all on one play like he often did before. If he plays, which I think he probably will at some point, simply because most QBs don't play all the snaps.
Bill from NYC Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 While that is both logical and possible, I don't think I believe that. To me, just my opinion, is that Losman's "problem" if you can call it that, was multi-faceted. And while his decisions on the field didn't turn out to be right, or produce in terms of yards and points and wins, I think his reasoning was correct and remains correct. And it failed because he didn't make enough plays himself, and his team and coaching staff just weren't good enough. What happened was, he knew he had to put some points on the board, he knew his defense wasn't good enough to stop anyone, and he had this great toy (his cannon arm) that he wasn't really allowed to play with as much as he wanted to. So when he was put in a position to, he tried to use it too much. And he failed. But we weren't REALLY going to win during any point in his career so far if he took the more conservative approach anyway. Our defense still was unreliable, our coaching was still pretty horrible and too conservative, and we didn't have enough real playmakers to make much difference. Now, we really should be a lot better. Most of the plays that he held the ball too long on or started reckless scrambling like a maniac were 3rd and 8 or more. Not all but a huge portion. I don't expect us to be in nearly as many of those. I expect the defense to be able to stop teams. I expect Turk to use the weapons a lot better than his predecessor. I expect the line to be better, Marshawn to have more room, and Hardy to open up the offense a little. And hence those 3rd and 8's or 3rd and 11's or 2nd and 14's will be 3rd and 5's or 6's. And he won't feel the need to do it all on one play like he often did before. If he plays, which I think he probably will at some point, simply because most QBs don't play all the snaps. JP also had to run for his life at Tulane. He knew how and was good at it. What he needed to learn in the NFL was how to stand in the pocket and utilize his very strong arm. I am not saying that he had good conditions to do so, but imo he still lacks pocket presence. This is not to say he never will have it; it is just something that I think that he sorely lacks.
JoeF Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 While that is both logical and possible, I don't think I believe that. To me, just my opinion, is that Losman's "problem" if you can call it that, was multi-faceted. And while his decisions on the field didn't turn out to be right, or produce in terms of yards and points and wins, I think his reasoning was correct and remains correct. And it failed because he didn't make enough plays himself, and his team and coaching staff just weren't good enough. What happened was, he knew he had to put some points on the board, he knew his defense wasn't good enough to stop anyone, and he had this great toy (his cannon arm) that he wasn't really allowed to play with as much as he wanted to. So when he was put in a position to, he tried to use it too much. And he failed. But we weren't REALLY going to win during any point in his career so far if he took the more conservative approach anyway. Our defense still was unreliable, our coaching was still pretty horrible and too conservative, and we didn't have enough real playmakers to make much difference. Now, we really should be a lot better. Most of the plays that he held the ball too long on or started reckless scrambling like a maniac were 3rd and 8 or more. Not all but a huge portion. I don't expect us to be in nearly as many of those. I expect the defense to be able to stop teams. I expect Turk to use the weapons a lot better than his predecessor. I expect the line to be better, Marshawn to have more room, and Hardy to open up the offense a little. And hence those 3rd and 8's or 3rd and 11's or 2nd and 14's will be 3rd and 5's or 6's. And he won't feel the need to do it all on one play like he often did before. If he plays, which I think he probably will at some point, simply because most QBs don't play all the snaps. All good points...I haven't done the analysis to the down and distance trends for JP's sacks or questionable plays..but I do agree, the Bills should be in less 3 and 7 and above this year. The only consideration I can offer is that I do believe that JP has a style that would almost always tend toward the deeper option on a play. He has to at least peak at it before he moves on. I think that would carry over to this better team from the days of desparation from which we are emerging. He uses the toy to the max..and I am not sure the team's improvement will cause him to live within the system more--in fact--his situation now--knowing he is showcasing his skills for his next team--would probably reinforce going for the gusto... Even with this nagging feeling, I want nothing more for him and the team than success if he plays.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 All good points...I haven't done the analysis to the down and distance trends for JP's sacks or questionable plays..but I do agree, the Bills should be in less 3 and 7 and above this year. The only consideration I can offer is that I do believe that JP has a style that would almost always tend toward the deeper option on a play. He has to at least peak at it before he moves on. I think that would carry over to this better team from the days of desparation from which we are emerging. He uses the toy to the max..and I am not sure the team's improvement will cause him to live within the system more--in fact--his situation now--knowing he is showcasing his skills for his next team--would probably reinforce going for the gusto... Even with this nagging feeling, I want nothing more for him and the team than success if he plays. I agree with all of that. But people act like Losman always holds the ball too long or Edwards always dumps it off too quick when the reality is that it was only 2-4 plays per game when that happened to both of them and if they would just make a better decision on 2-4 passing plays a game, the overall results will look much different. A lot of times when Losman tries to make a play and holds the ball a long time he makes the play or at least it was the correct decision. An equal number of times that Trent dumped the ball off too quick that was the most he could have gotten out of that play and it was the right decision, which brings us back to the original point. JP needs a couple better decisions per game and Trent needs a couple better decisions per game the other way. I don't think one is any easier or harder than the other.
Dan Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 I agree with all of that. But people act like Losman always holds the ball too long or Edwards always dumps it off too quick when the reality is that it was only 2-4 plays per game when that happened to both of them and if they would just make a better decision on 2-4 passing plays a game, the overall results will look much different. A lot of times when Losman tries to make a play and holds the ball a long time he makes the play or at least it was the correct decision. An equal number of times that Trent dumped the ball off too quick that was the most he could have gotten out of that play and it was the right decision, which brings us back to the original point. JP needs a couple better decisions per game and Trent needs a couple better decisions per game the other way. I don't think one is any easier or harder than the other. I would describe that as a very fair assessment of the two QBs. And ultimately, I think Trent fits what this coaching staff wants to do offensively more so than JP. Or to put it another way, they can live with Trent's mistakes while he learns; but not JPs. Hence, Trent is starting.
Captain Hindsight Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 Some around here would have you believe that element of TE's game is a big negative. That he's too willing to give up on the long play and goes through his progressions too fast. It's all about 'positive' plays. High percentage plays. Versus the VERY low percentage play of the DEEP SIDELINE PASS. Chicks dig the long ball, I guess. The name of the game is to keep the chains moving. That said, I look for TE to take far more chances down field as he's grown more comfortable with Evans, etc. Bank on it. In the meantime, like you, I'll be happy with someone that shows a TOTAL command of the offense. GO BILLS!!! For me the name of the game is score more points. yards are coold but points take the cake. I just dont want Lindell being the best fantasy Palyer on the Bills, much rather it be Edwards (or Hamdan)
Recommended Posts